(03-01-2015 05:27 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote: That reminds me of a Baptist preacher who, during the loud part of his sermon, yelled "Muslims don't have a savior. ASK THEM. THEY'LL TELL YOU."

Of course, that argument is only meaningful if your religion tells you that you need a savior...

Yeah, it always blows me away when a Christian makes an argument either using a threat of hell or promises of heaven to the unbelievers. That'd be no more compelling than me telling people not to chase rainbows for threat of angry leprechauns, or perhaps for reward of gold. I mean, really.

Quote:They allow Islam in our schools, but NOT Christianity... take the students to a church to be influenced by spiritual holiness, not to a mosque to bow to a devil!!

A lot of Christian conservatives feel that Christianity in America is somehow being attacked while Islam is being put on some kind of pedestal. What's the Muslim population in the states currently? Under 1%?

Quote:They allow Islam in our schools, but NOT Christianity... take the students to a church to be influenced by spiritual holiness, not to a mosque to bow to a devil!!

A lot of Christian conservatives feel that Christianity in America is somehow being attacked while Islam is being put on some kind of pedestal. What's the Muslim population in the states currently? Under 1%?

Yup, about 2M or 0.6%

I look forward to your filtered posts, I can’t get myself to look directly into the son without burning.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

A back and forth from a guy who really wants to show that atheists are stupid:

Him (OP): When evidence is considered in relation to God's existence, there is no neutral ground.

The atheist has skin in the games and he knows it. His very autonomy is at stake. This is why whatever evidence is presented, it will be analyzed according to pre beliefs - beliefs brought to the evidence.

This is why, say the fossil record brings such different conclusions. The atheist appeals to science, even though there are too many scientific assumptions for it to be called science. Assumptions that are neither testable or observable.

So he has 'faith' science one day will provide answers,in spite of his objections.
The very thing they mock Christians for they too are guilty of.

Me: I can be neutral. This has nothing to do with autonomy being at stake. It's just the things I used be believe were things I accepted on faith and not because of evidence.

The fossil record has nothing to do with the existence of God. If ideas such as evolution or the big bang were completely disproven, that in and of itself wouldn't prove God exists.

Him: Rob, you do know that to admit God exists, your Creator, He has ownership rights over you.
So, how can you think you are neutral?

Me: OP, no. I would have to admit that to prove that your specific version of the Christian god would imply ownership rights of me. There are a lot of versions of gods out there; even many versions of the Christian god. Not only would you have to prove his existence, you'd have to prove that he owns me.

I think I'm neutral because I'm not given any one of these gods any more weight than the others. I'll wait for evidence on any of them, that's not presuppositional.

Him: Rob, logic dictates that if you create something, you own it.

Speaking of logic, on what basis do you employ it? I mean, can you explain its origin, its universality?

Me: OP no. Logic dictates that if you create something, you created it. I do not own my kids. Even still, the notion of free will that is so important to non-Calvinists would seem to point that we DO have a pretty large degree of autonomy in Christian theology. It's part and parcel to "solving" the problem of evil.

Regarding how I employ logic: it looks like you're trying to say that logic cannot exist without God, or something. I have no idea how you'd begin to go proving that. If you ask me where it "comes from", I'll say "I don't know". Asserting that me not having an answer must somehow indicate God is a god of the gaps argument. Maybe you're right, but that isn't a logically valid way to prove it.

Him: The context here is life from nothing. As we have nothing to compare it to any illustration will be lacking.
Simple illustration, an artist creates an amazing sketch on paper.
Is it his to sell? Display? Hide it away? Throw it in the trash?

If it has feelings, is this reality changed? How so?

Me: OP, if by your own admission, we have nothing to compare the concept of creation from nothing to, how can you possibly assert that it implies ownership?

So far, you have an assertion followed up by a god of the gaps quip. Seriously, atheism is not believing in any gods, and nothing more.

Also, OP, you're still missing my broader point. If you are talking about atheism, you're talking about not believing in ANY gods. You then go on to contextualize this within the concept of your interpretation of your god.

What if I possit a God that creates us for the sole purpose of turning us loose and having no ownership over us? How would theism, in this case, violate my autonomy?

(05-01-2015 07:16 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: A back and forth from a guy who really wants to show that atheists are stupid:

Him (OP): When evidence is considered in relation to God's existence, there is no neutral ground.

The atheist has skin in the games and he knows it. His very autonomy is at stake. This is why whatever evidence is presented, it will be analyzed according to pre beliefs - beliefs brought to the evidence.

This is why, say the fossil record brings such different conclusions. The atheist appeals to science, even though there are too many scientific assumptions for it to be called science. Assumptions that are neither testable or observable.

So he has 'faith' science one day will provide answers,in spite of his objections.
The very thing they mock Christians for they too are guilty of.

Me: I can be neutral. This has nothing to do with autonomy being at stake. It's just the things I used be believe were things I accepted on faith and not because of evidence.

The fossil record has nothing to do with the existence of God. If ideas such as evolution or the big bang were completely disproven, that in and of itself wouldn't prove God exists.

Him: Rob, you do know that to admit God exists, your Creator, He has ownership rights over you.
So, how can you think you are neutral?

Me: OP, no. I would have to admit that to prove that your specific version of the Christian god would imply ownership rights of me. There are a lot of versions of gods out there; even many versions of the Christian god. Not only would you have to prove his existence, you'd have to prove that he owns me.

I think I'm neutral because I'm not given any one of these gods any more weight than the others. I'll wait for evidence on any of them, that's not presuppositional.

Him: Rob, logic dictates that if you create something, you own it.

Speaking of logic, on what basis do you employ it? I mean, can you explain its origin, its universality?

Me: OP no. Logic dictates that if you create something, you created it. I do not own my kids. Even still, the notion of free will that is so important to non-Calvinists would seem to point that we DO have a pretty large degree of autonomy in Christian theology. It's part and parcel to "solving" the problem of evil.

Regarding how I employ logic: it looks like you're trying to say that logic cannot exist without God, or something. I have no idea how you'd begin to go proving that. If you ask me where it "comes from", I'll say "I don't know". Asserting that me not having an answer must somehow indicate God is a god of the gaps argument. Maybe you're right, but that isn't a logically valid way to prove it.

Him: The context here is life from nothing. As we have nothing to compare it to any illustration will be lacking.
Simple illustration, an artist creates an amazing sketch on paper.
Is it his to sell? Display? Hide it away? Throw it in the trash?

If it has feelings, is this reality changed? How so?

Me: OP, if by your own admission, we have nothing to compare the concept of creation from nothing to, how can you possibly assert that it implies ownership?

So far, you have an assertion followed up by a god of the gaps quip. Seriously, atheism is not believing in any gods, and nothing more.

Also, OP, you're still missing my broader point. If you are talking about atheism, you're talking about not believing in ANY gods. You then go on to contextualize this within the concept of your interpretation of your god.

What if I possit a God that creates us for the sole purpose of turning us loose and having no ownership over us? How would theism, in this case, violate my autonomy?

And that's where we are, so far.

I heard an interesting point made by Matt Dillahunty on The Atheist Experience today. He was in a similar conversation with a caller, he said that even if I allow that your god exists and can explain all of existence, how do you know that this god didn't cease to exist after he created everything?
This would actually explain the universe much better, especially the problem of evil.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition

(06-01-2015 12:52 AM)morondog Wrote: This chap is so damn happy to be owned by a figment of his imagination? Yeesh

I think he's so damn happy to try to find a way to dismiss what atheists say. That's one thing I've noticed about these sites. I find a small minority of Christians that actually consider atheism and agnosticism to be rational view points. Most others look for a way to discredit it. My guess is because they don't like hard questions, so these questions need to be dismissed. I cannot count the number of times I've seen "pearls before swine" references in the past few weeks. It must be nice to have a book that tells you you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Here's where he picked up:

Him: Rob, I will not debate things neither of us believe. Unlike what such a tactic implies, I am not here discussing as some sort of mental exercise.
While I very well could find other uses of my time, this is a good use of it.

How can I imply ownership? The mere fact of our existence. If you designed a widget and it was uniquely yours, you would have undisputed ownership of it. If it didn't exist, neither does your claim of ownership.

God of the gaps is so easily refuted with science of the gaps 'one day science will give us an answer.

Until then we have faith in science (the definition of scientism).

Me: OP, so you're saying that because you believe in the Christian god, I must consider it as an option, but because no one believes in my hypothetical god, we cannot consider it, even though neither can be proven true or false? Odd. It seems you're dodging the issue to keep contextualizing atheism within the restraints of Christianity (more specifically, your version of Christianity).

Regarding god of the gaps: science HAS given us many answers. People used to believe in sun gods before they understood astronomy. No one has ever proven the divine or supernatural explanations. I see no reason to assume them simply because they offer an easy explanation.

Just because we can't answer where logic "comes from" doesn't automatically imply God. It also doesn't imply that science will eventually give us the answer.

Me: Becuase you can't prove either of them right or wrong. Why should I give special weight to your god just because you believe in him?

That depends on what parts of evolution you're talking about. Still, evolution isn't an atheistic view, so I don't see why you keep propping it up in opposition to theism. A person that doesn't believe in gods doesn't necessarily believe in evloution, and a person who does doesn't necessarily reject evolution.

Evolution really isn't that important to my world view. Apart from getting a flu shot each year and listening to my doctor when telling me how long to take an antibiotic (both part of what a lot of creationists call "microevolution"), it has no bearing on my life. If someone disproved "macro"evolution, it wouldn't affect me. I'm fine following whatever has the most evidence supporting it.

Disproving evolution wouldn't in and of itself prove the existence of any gods. If we were left with no answer as to the origin of life, positing God as the "only" answer would still be a god of the gaps argument. You have to PROVE it, you can't just say "well, you don't have an answer, so lets just use mine".

Him: Rob, you havent explained the value of debating things neither of us believe. (Note the complete and utter dodge. He's getting desperate.)

Me: OP, this is getting off topic in a way that it doesn't have to. This is all in response to you saying that I must reject God to maintain my autonomy, and I don't see why that is necessarily true. According to non-Calvinist Christian doctrine, people have free will, and that is the basis of judgement. Ownership or not, people make choices and are responsible for them. How is that a lack of autonomy?

Him: But when you make assertions it is appropriate for me to address those as they all point back to the same thing.
This will/must continue as long as you make assertions that are either nonsensical or cannot be supported with your world view.

I am waiting for an answer. (Same dodge.)

Me: OP, the answer is because it serves a good illustrative purpose, even if you don't like it.

Why limit yourself to the gods you personally deem worthy to discuss? It's not like you can bring any evidence to the table that your god is correct and any other nonfalsifiable god isn't. It just shows the bias that you're unwilling to see the world through any lens other than your own view point; a fact that shows when you start trying to explain atheism to atheists.

Also, OP, I'm awaiting your respopnse as to whether or not Christianity actually posits a lack of autonomy. If it doesn't, then your entire premise is flawed from the start, and any notions about hypothetical gods are moot. It looks like you're deliberately dodging the issue.

According to Christian teachings, are Christians responsible for their actions or not? If so, how is this a lack of autonomy?

Him: Rob, this thread is not about debating things neither of us believe in.
If you chose to have that discussion, I invite you to begin your own thread.
Stop hijacking mine.

Christianity teaches that God is our creator. He has the right to tell us how to behave. He has the fight to send sinners to hell (all, if He so chose).
Christians, by definition are not autonomous.

Christians are responsible for their actions same as all humans.
Autonomy is self government. The Christian accepts the authority of God, therefore they are not autonomous.
I think you might want to define the word responsible as in 'to whom'.

Me: OP, you're not arguing autonomy now, you're arguing force. God can force people to hell regardless of their decisions. You are no longer talking about the independence of making decisions and are now talking about God taking action despite the decisions. If you're going to argue autonomy, you have to stick to it.

Now, you could shift the goal posts and say I have skin in the game because I don't want to believe in a god that can unilaterally punish me. I would respond that I already live in a world where people can do that.

Your initial premise in the OP is flawed. You haven't demonstrated that I have "skin in the game".

Him: Authority applied by anyone besides yourself (autonomy) will require force. Can you think of an example where that is not the case?
Argument is not shifted as no human force tells you what to think, and you may cheat, steal etc and never get caught.

Romans 1 says you do have skin in the game.

Me: Now explain how that applies to autonomy.

I don't see the Bible as a source of universal truth, so quoting Bible verses at me serves no purpose other than to convince yourself that you're right. You still haven't proven I have skin in the game; you've only asserted it.

Him: Apparently we are getting hung up on this word.
Either you are not accountable or you are, isnt that simple?

<screenshot of definition of autonomy>

Me: It's also defined as the independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions.

However, you weren't talking about that when you shifted the conversation saying God can send anyone (or everyone) to hell if he chooses. Regardless of what God opts to do in that regard, it has no bearing on the ability to make decisions. In fact, claiming that God can do whatever he wants only furthers to prove that human actions don't influence his actions, ergo, no autonomy is lost by God existing as opposed to not existing.

You could posit a puppet-master god like some forms of Calvinism, but that doesn't appear to be the route you're taking.

You still haven't proven I have "skin in the game" which is a core conceit of your OP.

Him: Rob, I didn't shirt the argument; it was a facet of the discussion.

Apparently you are just fine, continue as you are. I've tried to lead you to truth, but that is not what you are interested in.
Have a good day.

Actually, i spent a whole lot of time on evidences in this thread, which negates your mockery. (That last sentence was intended for someone else, I think, but I responded before I figured that out.)

Me: Nice dodge, OP. I have only responded directly to what you said and not mocked you. You made an assertion that I "have skin in the game" because my autonomy is at stake and cited that as a reason I cannot be neutral. That was all in your post. You haven't backed that assertion; you've simply made it.

Saying that you're trying to "lead me to truth" is just more arguing via assertion. If you have some way to demonstrate your claim, do so. If not, don't act like it's my fault for not taking your assertions on the value of "because you say so".

The following 2 users Like RobbyPants's post:2 users Like RobbyPants's postmorondog (08-01-2015), Full Circle (08-01-2015)

Me: Becuase you can't prove either of them right or wrong. Why should I give special weight to your god just because you believe in him?

That depends on what parts of evolution you're talking about. Still, evolution isn't an atheistic view, so I don't see why you keep propping it up in opposition to theism. A person that doesn't believe in gods doesn't necessarily believe in evloution, and a person who does doesn't necessarily reject evolution.

Evolution really isn't that important to my world view. Apart from getting a flu shot each year and listening to my doctor when telling me how long to take an antibiotic (both part of what a lot of creationists call "microevolution"), it has no bearing on my life. If someone disproved "macro"evolution, it wouldn't affect me. I'm fine following whatever has the most evidence supporting it.

Disproving evolution wouldn't in and of itself prove the existence of any gods. If we were left with no answer as to the origin of life, positing God as the "only" answer would still be a god of the gaps argument. You have to PROVE it, you can't just say "well, you don't have an answer, so lets just use mine".

Him: Rob, you havent explained the value of debating things neither of us believe. (Note the complete and utter dodge. He's getting desperate.)

Me: OP, this is getting off topic in a way that it doesn't have to. This is all in response to you saying that I must reject God to maintain my autonomy, and I don't see why that is necessarily true. According to non-Calvinist Christian doctrine, people have free will, and that is the basis of judgement. Ownership or not, people make choices and are responsible for them. How is that a lack of autonomy?

Him: But when you make assertions it is appropriate for me to address those as they all point back to the same thing.
This will/must continue as long as you make assertions that are either nonsensical or cannot be supported with your world view.

I am waiting for an answer. (Same dodge.)

Me: OP, the answer is because it serves a good illustrative purpose, even if you don't like it.

Why limit yourself to the gods you personally deem worthy to discuss? It's not like you can bring any evidence to the table that your god is correct and any other nonfalsifiable god isn't. It just shows the bias that you're unwilling to see the world through any lens other than your own view point; a fact that shows when you start trying to explain atheism to atheists.

Also, OP, I'm awaiting your respopnse as to whether or not Christianity actually posits a lack of autonomy. If it doesn't, then your entire premise is flawed from the start, and any notions about hypothetical gods are moot. It looks like you're deliberately dodging the issue.

According to Christian teachings, are Christians responsible for their actions or not? If so, how is this a lack of autonomy?

Him: Rob, this thread is not about debating things neither of us believe in.
If you chose to have that discussion, I invite you to begin your own thread.
Stop hijacking mine.

Christianity teaches that God is our creator. He has the right to tell us how to behave. He has the fight to send sinners to hell (all, if He so chose).
Christians, by definition are not autonomous.

Christians are responsible for their actions same as all humans.
Autonomy is self government. The Christian accepts the authority of God, therefore they are not autonomous.
I think you might want to define the word responsible as in 'to whom'.

Me: OP, you're not arguing autonomy now, you're arguing force. God can force people to hell regardless of their decisions. You are no longer talking about the independence of making decisions and are now talking about God taking action despite the decisions. If you're going to argue autonomy, you have to stick to it.

Now, you could shift the goal posts and say I have skin in the game because I don't want to believe in a god that can unilaterally punish me. I would respond that I already live in a world where people can do that.

Your initial premise in the OP is flawed. You haven't demonstrated that I have "skin in the game".

Him: Authority applied by anyone besides yourself (autonomy) will require force. Can you think of an example where that is not the case?
Argument is not shifted as no human force tells you what to think, and you may cheat, steal etc and never get caught.

Romans 1 says you do have skin in the game.

Me: Now explain how that applies to autonomy.

I don't see the Bible as a source of universal truth, so quoting Bible verses at me serves no purpose other than to convince yourself that you're right. You still haven't proven I have skin in the game; you've only asserted it.

Him: Apparently we are getting hung up on this word.
Either you are not accountable or you are, isnt that simple?

<screenshot of definition of autonomy>

Me: It's also defined as the independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions.

However, you weren't talking about that when you shifted the conversation saying God can send anyone (or everyone) to hell if he chooses. Regardless of what God opts to do in that regard, it has no bearing on the ability to make decisions. In fact, claiming that God can do whatever he wants only furthers to prove that human actions don't influence his actions, ergo, no autonomy is lost by God existing as opposed to not existing.

You could posit a puppet-master god like some forms of Calvinism, but that doesn't appear to be the route you're taking.

You still haven't proven I have "skin in the game" which is a core conceit of your OP.

Him: Rob, I didn't shirt the argument; it was a facet of the discussion.

Apparently you are just fine, continue as you are. I've tried to lead you to truth, but that is not what you are interested in.
Have a good day.

Actually, i spent a whole lot of time on evidences in this thread, which negates your mockery. (That last sentence was intended for someone else, I think, but I responded before I figured that out.)

Me: Nice dodge, OP. I have only responded directly to what you said and not mocked you. You made an assertion that I "have skin in the game" because my autonomy is at stake and cited that as a reason I cannot be neutral. That was all in your post. You haven't backed that assertion; you've simply made it.

Saying that you're trying to "lead me to truth" is just more arguing via assertion. If you have some way to demonstrate your claim, do so. If not, don't act like it's my fault for not taking your assertions on the value of "because you say so".

This guy proves that atheism is absurd. Why the fuck are you still an atheist? How can you stand owning an opinion which is so obviously absurd?